Supreme Court extends retirement age for AYUSH doctors retrospectively: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021) INSC 489 (03 August 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 03 August 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 489
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can doctors practicing traditional medicine (AYUSH) be treated differently from allopathic doctors regarding their retirement age? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, examining whether denying AYUSH doctors the same retirement age as allopathic doctors is discriminatory. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the AYUSH doctors, ensuring they receive equal treatment and benefits.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the retirement age of doctors employed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). Prior to May 31, 2016, the retirement age for all General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs), including those under the Central Health Scheme (CHS), dentists, and doctors under AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy), was 60 years.

On May 31, 2016, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, issued an order enhancing the retirement age to 65 years for specialists and GDMOs under the CHS. This was followed by an amendment to the Fundamental Rules, 1922. Subsequently, on June 30, 2016, the NDMC adopted this order, raising the retirement age to 65 years for allopathic doctors working under it. However, a clarification issued on August 30, 2016, stated that the enhanced retirement age was applicable only to allopathic doctors under CHS, leaving it to other organizations to decide on the applicability of this decision to their doctors. This meant that AYUSH doctors were not covered by the initial order.

This led to several Original Applications (OAs) being filed by AYUSH doctors before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), seeking the same benefit of enhanced retirement age as allopathic doctors. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the AYUSH doctors, stating that denying them the same retirement age was discriminatory. The NDMC then filed writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the Tribunal’s decision.

During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, issued an order on November 24, 2017, enhancing the superannuation age of AYUSH doctors to 65 years, effective from September 27, 2017. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. The present appeals before the Supreme Court were filed against this decision of the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) initially ruled in favor of the AYUSH doctors, stating that the denial of the enhanced retirement age was discriminatory. The Tribunal directed that the AYUSH doctors be allowed to continue in service until the age of 65 years, with all consequential benefits.

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) challenged this decision by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, however, upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the writ petitions. The High Court also noted that while the NDMC had adopted the Ministry’s decision to enhance the retirement age, those AYUSH doctors who retired between May 31, 2016, and September 26, 2017, were being deprived of the benefit.

The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) also filed Writ Petitions against the Tribunal’s order which were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

The Union of India also filed Writ Petitions against the Tribunal’s order which were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

The NDMC, SDMC and Union of India then filed appeals before the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The core issue is whether the differential treatment of allopathic and AYUSH doctors regarding retirement age is discriminatory and violates this constitutional guarantee.

The relevant legal provisions and orders include:

• Order dated 31.05.2016 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, enhancing the retirement age of specialists and GDMOs of CHS to 65 years.
• Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2016 amending the Fundamental Rules, 1922.
• Office Order dated 30.06.2016 by NDMC adopting the enhanced retirement age of 65 years for allopathic doctors.
• Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2016 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare clarifying that the enhanced superannuation age is applicable to GDMOs of CHS i.e. allopathic doctors.
• Order dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, enhancing the superannuation age of AYUSH doctors to 65 years w.e.f. 27.09.2017.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Appellant’s Arguments (NDMC, SDMC and Union of India)

• The appellants argued that the benefit of enhanced retirement age should be extended only from 27.09.2017, as per the AYUSH Ministry’s decision. They contended that there is limited scope for interference with a cut-off date stipulated by the government.

• The appellants relied on the interim order of the High Court, arguing that while the respondent doctors were allowed to continue in service beyond 60 years, they were not entitled to any equitable relief by way of arrears of salary.

• The appellants highlighted the financial implications of disbursing unpaid arrears to the respondent doctors, arguing that they should not be burdened with this liability.

• The appellants contended that the classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law.

• The appellants relied on the judgment in *U. P. State Brasswar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs. Uday Narain Pandey* (2006) 1 SCC 479, to argue that the Court should determine the award of back wages based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Respondents’ Arguments (AYUSH Doctors)

• The respondents argued that the differential treatment of allopathic and AYUSH doctors regarding superannuation age was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

• They contended that there should be no separate service conditions regarding superannuation age between allopathic and other category doctors, especially since the AYUSH Ministry itself enhanced the retirement age for non-allopathic doctors w.e.f. 27.09.2017.

• The respondents argued that they have continuously served in hospitals and are entitled to their salary and arrears.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the action of the authorities in treating allopathic doctors differently from AYUSH doctors concerning the age of superannuation is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the classification of doctors under AYUSH and CHS for the purpose of retirement age is discriminatory and unreasonable. The Court noted that both categories of doctors perform the same function of treating and healing patients, and the mode of treatment does not qualify as an intelligible differentia.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the principle of ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’ as explained in *Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania* (2010) 9 SCC 437*, stating that the act of the Court should not prejudice anyone. The Court also relied on the judgment in *Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors.* (2014) 1 SCC 161* to state that an employee cannot be deprived of his salary when he has rendered service. The Court further relied on *Dayanand Chakrawarthy vs. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2013) 7 SCC 595* to hold that the principle of “no pay no work” shall not be applicable if an employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties.

The Court distinguished the case of *U. P. State Brasswar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs. Uday Narain Pandey* (2006) 1 SCC 479* as the facts were different. The Court also distinguished the case of *New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. vs. B. D. Singhal & Ors.* 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466, C.A. No. 2311 of 2021* on the basis of different facts and circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that both AYUSH and allopathic doctors perform the same essential function of treating patients, and there is no rational basis for differentiating between them based on their mode of treatment. The Court also noted that the AYUSH Ministry’s order of 24.11.2017, extending the retirement age to 65 years, supports the view that there should be no discrimination between the two categories of doctors. The Court also took into account the fact that the respondent doctors had been providing service to countless patients without remuneration for almost 5 years.

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of equality and non-discrimination, the idea that no work should go unpaid, the importance of the service rendered by the doctors, and the constitutional rights of the doctors.

The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations than factual aspects of the case.

The Court rejected the argument that the interim order of the High Court could be used to deny salary and arrears to the respondent doctors. The Court held that the interim order merged with the final judgment and that the doctors were entitled to all consequential benefits of employment. The Court also rejected the argument that the State would face a financial burden by disbursing the arrears, stating that the State cannot deny salary for legally serving doctors.

The Supreme Court concluded that the order of the AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent doctors.

“The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.”

“Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors.”

“The State cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.”

Key Takeaways

• AYUSH doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as allopathic doctors.
• The mode of treatment is not a valid basis for discrimination in service conditions.
• The principle of ‘no work should go unpaid’ should be followed in cases where the service rendered by the employees have been productive.
• The State cannot deny salary and benefits to employees who have rendered service.
• The order of the AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 has been retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears, which must be disbursed within 8 weeks from the date of the order. Belated payment beyond the stipulated period will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the order until the date of payment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that there should be no discrimination between AYUSH and allopathic doctors regarding retirement age. The Court has retrospectively applied the AYUSH Ministry’s order, ensuring that all doctors receive equal benefits from 31.05.2016. This decision reinforces the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case ensures that AYUSH doctors receive equal treatment and benefits as their allopathic counterparts. The Court’s ruling is a significant step towards eliminating discrimination in the healthcare sector and upholding the constitutional rights of all medical professionals. The retrospective application of the AYUSH Ministry’s order also ensures that no doctor is deprived of their rightful benefits.